A Policy Analysis of Russia’s Proposed Special Education Standards Irina Vodonos A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in International Studies: Russia, East Europe and Central Asia University of Washington 2012 Committee: Stephen T. Kerr Sharan E. Brown David S. Harrison Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Jackson School of International Studies Table of Contents List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………..ii List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………..iii List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………......iv Limitations……………………………………………………………………………………….vii Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………1 Chapter 1: Special Education in Russia, Early 19th Century to the Present……………………...3 Chapter 2: Russia’s Special Education System Today (the “Status Quo” Policy Alternative)….17 Chapter 3: Special Education Standards Project (the “SFGOS” Policy Alternative)…………...28 Chapter 4: Stakeholder Mapping………………………………………………………………...42 Chapter 5: Policy Analysis Part I: Analysis Framework and Evaluative/Substantive Criteria….50 Chapter 6: Policy Analysis Part II: Operational/Practical Criteria………………………………87 Conclusion and Recommendations……………………………………………………………..119 References……………………………………………………………………………………....127 i List of Figures Figure 4.1: “Back of the envelope” map for the SFGOS project………………………………...43 Figure 4.2: Groups of actors with potential to impact the SFGOS project………………………47 Figure 4.3: Actors with potential to impact the SFGOS project, detailed……………………….48 Figure 4.4: Relationships among interest groups, detailed………………………………………49 ii List of Tables Table 5.1: Evaluative/Substantive Criteria Scores……………………………………………….62 Table 5.2: FGOS and SFGOS-mandated content areas………………………………………….67 Table 6.1: Status Quo and the SFGOS Project Compared on Operational/Practical Criteria…...93 iii List of Abbreviations CRPD: United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Adopted in 2006, signed by Russia in 2008, ratified by Russia in 2012. FGOS (federal’nye gosudarstvennye standarty obshchego obrazovaniia): federal government standards for general education. The standards have been under development in Russia since the mid-2000’s, with standards for certain stages of education already in effect and others in the process of revision. In this paper, FGOS refers to the standards for primary school (grades 1-4), approved in 2009, piloted extensively in the 2010-2011 academic year, and implemented nationwide in first-grade classrooms in the 2011-2012 academic year. ICP (Institut korrektsionnoi pedagogiki): Institute of Correctional Pedagogy. Russia’s officially recognized main authority on special education methodology and textbooks and the developer of the proposed SFGOS standards for special education. A part of the Russian Academy of Education, a nominally independent but state-funded institution. MON (Ministerstvo obrazovaniia i nauki): Ministry of Education and Science. In this context, refers primarily to Russia’s federal-level education authority. Each Russian region also has its own regional-level Ministry of Education and Science. PISA: Program for International Student Assessment. Test administered by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to assess students’ ability to apply skills and knowledge in reading, mathematics, and science. PMPK (psikhologo-mediko-pedagogicheskaia kommissiia): psychological-medical- pedagogical commission. The entity authorized by local government to evaluate children for special education services and recommend placement. iv SFGOS (spetsial’nye federal’nye gosudarstvennye standarty obshchego obrazovaniia): special federal government standards for general education. Under development by the ICP since 2008. v Acknowledgements I would like to thank my interviewees, Svetlana Aliokhina of Moscow State University of Psychology and Education, Olesia Arzybova of Samara State Academy of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vasilii Bardadymov of Tkhiia Education Center #1311, Natalia Komova of the Institute of Correctional Pedagogy of the Russian Academy of Education, and Maria Perfil’eva of Perspektiva for taking time out of their extremely busy schedules to share information and opinions about the SFGOS project and other special education reforms in Russia. Thank you also to the following individuals for connecting me with my interview contacts: Aleksandr Adamsky of the Eureka Institute for Education Policy, Jose Alaniz of the University of Washington, Lev Fishman of Samara State Academy of Social Sciences and Humanities, Isak Froumin of the Higher School of Economics and the World Bank, Elena Iarskaia-Smirnova of the Higher School of Economics and Saratov State Technical University, Vladimir Sobkin of the Institute for Sociology of Education of the Russian Academy of Education, and Aleksandr Uvarov of the Computing Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. I am tremendously grateful to my thesis committee chair, Stephen T. Kerr, for providing thoughtful guidance and generously sharing his knowledge and contacts, and to my committee members, Sharan E. Brown and David S. Harrison, for their invaluable expertise and advice. I truly appreciate my employer, WACAP (World Association for Children and Parents), for keeping me on staff in a part-time capacity through the duration of my studies and allowing me to build my work schedule around my school schedule. Last but not least, thanks are due to my wonderful family for making it possible for me to pursue graduate study and to my friends for their support and encouragement as I wrote – and frequently struggled with – this paper. vi Limitations Work on this paper was constrained by several types of limitations as described below. Challenges inherent in conducting research from outside of Russia Because the research for this paper was conducted from the United States, certain types of information were more challenging to access. Interviews with Russian special education professionals and NGOs had to be arranged and conducted via email, leading to lower response rates and more concise responses. Certain publications that may have been useful in my analysis were only available in Russian libraries and could not be obtained in time to complete the research, while other publications could not be obtained at all. In particular, lack of detailed and consistent quantitative data on the economics of various special education models made it difficult to conduct a full-scale benefit-cost analysis, limiting it to a largely qualitative discussion centered on the few figures that were available. Absence of direct contacts in the Russian special education community The absence of contacts in the special education community in Russia necessitated going through a variety of channels to identify potential informants. In many cases, requests for interviews were passed down a chain of several individuals prior to landing in the inbox of the person qualified to respond, a process that took a considerable amount of time and, in some cases, resulted in a virtual “dead end” that failed to produce a response. Lack of information on special education systems in other countries Information on international experience in developing special education standards has proven difficult to obtain. When approached with a request for assistance, Paula H. Leitz, President of the International Association of Special Education and Associate Professor of Instructional Development and Leadership at Pacific Lutheran University, commented that few “countries actually use standard-based education for general education [much] vii less special education” (Leitz, personal communication, November 16, 2011). The US special education system was therefore chosen to serve as representative of international best practices when discussing the fit of current Russian policy and the SFGOS with international experience. Lack of a background in education Not being trained as an educator, I am not in a position to carry out an assessment of the curricula or teaching approaches recommended in the SFGOS from the standpoint of an education professional; nor do I qualify to draft an alternative set of standards that would be fundamentally different from the SFGOS. As a result, my discussion of policy alternatives is limited to comparing the SFGOS to the status quo. Limitations of a policy analysis model Perhaps the most significant limitation is the one presented by my chosen analytical model, a Bardach-style policy analysis (Bardach, 2009). The policy analysis framework provides a useful structure that helps examine the public value and feasibility of a policy alternative from multiple angles and compare two or more alternatives against each other. However, this type of analysis can rarely provide definitive answers as to whether a policy is “good” or “bad” or whether a certain policy is “better” than another policy, and by how much. While it may be tempting to assign numerical value to qualitative scores such as “very low” or “medium” for each alternative, add them up, calculate the total, and declare that the alternative that scores the greatest number of points is the better one, such an approach would constitute an oversimplification of a complex situation in which different criteria and indicators may carry different weight, depending on the analyst or the decision-maker. Instead, a policy analysis is best viewed as a way to lend some transparency and objectivity to the discussion by advancing explicit criteria and